Thursday, July 10, 2008

Some of you have asked about the Washington Times Blog Piece that talked about shock bracelets. We reached out to the Department of Homeland Security’s Science & Technology Directorate to see if there was any validity to this story, and there isn’t.

Here’s what S&T's John Verrico posted as a comment on the Washington Times blog, and we wanted to make sure all of our readers saw it was well.

DHS-S&T spokesman said...

Shocking, but False

Sometimes it just amazes me how these stories evolve. Let me start off by saying that the Department of Homeland Security’s Science & Technology Directorate nor TSA have been pursuing shock bracelets for airline passengers as alleged by the Washington Times Blog.

This allegation stemmed from a misleading video posted on the Lamberd Website which depicts an ID bracelet that would contain identifying information as well as the ability to stun the wearer. The company claims to connect use of such a device to DHS and TSA, but no discussions between these agencies has ever taken place.

This all originated from a meeting held two years ago with a private company representative (not Lamberd) who proposed bracelet technology in response to the TSA's desire to find less-than-lethal means to detain an apprehended suspect. The bracelet was never intended to replace boarding passes, contain ID information or be worn by all passengers as asserted in the Lamberd video and discussed in the Washington Times Blog.

The hypothetical use of the bracelet would have been for transporting already apprehended prisoners and detainees at prisons and border patrol facilities, and DHS was looking to see if there were potential air travel applications for apprehended suspects.

This concept was never funded or supported by the DHS or TSA and hasn’t even been discussed for two years. The letter circulating throughout the blogosphere from Paul Ruwaldt was not addressed to Lamberd and merely states the DHS was interested in learning more about the technology. Neither side followed up. DHS/TSA does NOT support the asserted use and has not pursued the development of such technology. - John Verrico DHS S&T Spokesman

The fact is someone, somewhere thought that wearable-tasers would be a good control device for passengers. Otherwise the story would never have existed.

If TSA is so adamant that this policy will never happen, let's have a signed document by Hawley promising that published in the NYT and Wash. Post. And while you're at it, promise that TSA will never make passengers fly naked or in hospital-like gowns, will never ban carry-on luggage, and will never ban laptops or cell phones in carry-on.

After all, three years ago nobody ever would have believed TSA would ban water.

Your agency is out of control and on a massive power trip to dominate passengers with security theater. Until TSA can be reigned in, the only way to help passengers will be explicit guarantees that the seemingly-absurd will never happen.

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.The sun is up.Water is wet.

I would verify each and every one of those before trusting him. Obfuscation, deception, mis direction, smoke and mirrors, are all used by TSA on a daily basis, so as to reduce public criticism/scrutiny.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/intrusion_prevention/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208803214 says that you are not telling the truth.

And I suppose the letter was photoshopped:http://www.lamperdlesslethal.com/news/upload/pg1HomelandSecurity7_06.pdf (Page 1)http://www.lamperdlesslethal.com/news/upload/pg2HomelandSecurity7_06.pdf page 2.

And all of these weblinks are simply false. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=shock+bracelets&start=10&sa=N

At this point, the Transportation Security Administration's policies in general are wrong on so many levels that it's hard to get one's arms around them. My apologies to those who've tired of my harping on this subject in column after column, but here again are the bullet points:

* Sharp, potentially dangerous objects can be fashioned from virtually anything, including no shortage of materials found on board any jetliner -- to say nothing of the fact that a copycat takeover in the style of Sept. 11 would be almost impossible for terrorists to pull off, regardless of what weapons they possess. Yet we insist on wasting huge amounts of time digging through people's belongings, looking for what are effectively benign items.

* Almost as senseless are the liquids and gels restrictions. Experts have pointed out the futility of these measures, yet they remain in place. (Still more from TSA's you-can't-make-this-up list of airport contraband: gel shoe inserts.)

* TSA's approach is fundamentally flawed in that it treats everybody -- from employees to passengers, old and young, domestic and foreign -- as a potential threat. We are all suspects. Together with a preposterous zero-tolerance approach to weapons, be they real or perceived, this has created a colossal apparatus that strives for the impossible.

I can't disagree that some level of screening will always be important. Explosives and firearms, for instance, need to be kept off airplanes. But the existing rules are so heavy-handed, absolute and illogical as to be ultimately unenforceable.

You would think, nearly seven years after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, that TSA would have gotten its act together. Not just tactically, but functionally. Take a look at the typical checkpoint. There are people yelling, bags falling, trash bins overflowing with water bottles. There's nowhere to stand, nowhere to move. It's a jury-rigged circus.

But we should hardly be surprised, perhaps, at the Frankenstein monster now before us. Propped up by a culture of fear, TSA has become a bureaucracy with too much power and little accountability. It almost makes you wonder if the Department of Homeland Security made a conscious decision to present bureaucratic incompetence and arrogance as the public face of TSA, hoping that people would then raise enough of a fuss that it could be turned over to the likes of Halliburton. (Funny, how despite this administration's eagerness to outsource anything and everything, it's kept its governmental talons wrapped snugly around TSA.)

Except there is no fuss. Serious protest has been all but nil. The airlines, biggest losers in all of this, remain strangely quiet. More and more people are choosing not to fly, and checkpoint hassles are one of the reasons. Yet the industry appears to have little concern while an out-of-control agency delays and aggravates its customers.

And it's going to get worse, not better. As I'm sure you've heard, TSA is deploying body scanners that can see through clothing. It is also implementing gate-side luggage checks similar to those that were common in the days following Sept. 11. After proceeding through the main screening checkpoint, selected passengers will be enjoying a second one just before boarding.

To scare away complainers, TSA is also deploying signs at airports around the country. "Interfering with security personnel or procedures in any manner," the signs read, "is prohibited."

That "in any manner" bit is an eyebrow raiser. Does that include questioning or challenging TSA's methods? Are guards not answerable to those they're supposedly protecting, and who are paying their salaries? How about a sign that cuts to the chase: "Don't question us, just do as you're told."

And what does "prohibited" mean, exactly? What sort of a threat is that? We ask because although it does not have law enforcement powers, TSA has begun issuing navy-blue uniforms and silver, cop-style badges. Not by accident, the badges look exactly like the kind worn by actual police officers. They say "U.S. Officer" at the top, with an eagle emblem in the center and "Transportation Security Administration" across the bottom. Not all law enforcement officials are happy.

The agency will tell you this is a way of enhancing the TSA's image, but in reality it's a method of coercion. Speaking in a USA Today article, TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said, "Some of our officers aren't respected." It's not often that I laugh out loud while reading the newspaper, but that one had me going. You don't say.

In the same article, a screener at Boston's Logan International said of the new badges and shirts, "It'll go a long way to enhance the respect of this workforce."

No, sorry, that's not it. You don't bully and fool people into respecting you. If TSA wants respect, it can start with a radical overhaul of its policies, replacing the rules we have with ones that are sensible and effective.

First of all, I'm not a fan of the TSA, the ID requirement, and most of your recent security "enhancements", but even I know that the "shocking bracelet" rumor is bogus. Such a policy would shut down the transportation system as we know it, and even you know that. Besides, a bureaucracy such as the TSA (even though operating largely under the guise of secrecy/SSI) must still gather up a reasonable amount of political support for it's policies (why else would this blog be here?). The bracelets would enjoy none.

Don't give Bob credit for this one. He simply posted somethign that had already been posted in response to a question I asked. The gentleman who posted it is DHS which is not necessarily TSA. They posted this on their own accord, none of the bloggers have responded to that or any other blog comment in any significant fashion.

For som reason I actually believe our new blogger John. Its a reasonable response with a direct assessment and correction of the misconception at hand. If he was lieing he would have been much much more coy and indirect.

Fortunately, I am quite familiar with your agency and with how the federal government does R&D business. There are a couple of ststements in the post that most would gloss over, but, I am going to hold your feet to the fire.

This all originated from a meeting held two years ago with a private company representative (not Lamberd) who proposed bracelet technology in response to the TSA's desire to find less-than-lethal means to detain an apprehended suspect. The bracelet was never intended to replace boarding passes, contain ID information or be worn by all passengers as asserted in the Lamberd video and discussed in the Washington Times Blog.

You're splitting hairs and obfuscating the facts.

1. You DID have a meeting with SOMEBODY on this technology two years ago. That means the TSA IS interested in this technology. Provide us a link to the Borad Agency Announcement and/or FedBizOpps ammouncement requesting white papers, proposals, etc.

The hypothetical use of the bracelet would have been for transporting already apprehended prisoners and detainees at prisons and border patrol facilities, and DHS was looking to see if there were potential air travel applications for apprehended suspects.

2. This sounds like a set of requirements to me. Where were they published?

This concept was never funded or supported by the DHS or TSA and hasn’t even been discussed for two years.

3. I can believe the first part of your statement, but it obviously WAS supported, otherwise contractors wouldn't have spent their own money to come in and talk to you.

Yes, I know I could FOIA all this stuff. Instead, how about coming clean for once and post links to the whole story? The BAA and/or FedBizOpps announcement must be in someone's computer. It's only two years old.

The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.The sun is up.Water is wet.

I would verify each and every one of those before trusting him. Obfuscation, deception, mis direction, smoke and mirrors, are all used by TSA on a daily basis, so as to reduce public criticism/scrutiny.

Fair enough, but I hope you turn that same skeptical eye to the many rumors and stories like this one you see in the media and blogosphere.

To most people this story would sound quite ridiculous, but to DHS and TSA, it would be a dream come true. Imagine, complete control of the traveling public from the time they check in at the airline counter, until they leave the airport of their destination. Have a person that is not as cooperative as they like, give him a few jolts. That will get him to tow the line. I think if DHS could pull it off and get away with it, they would most certainly want to implement this.

1. You DID have a meeting with SOMEBODY on this technology two years ago. That means the TSA IS interested in this technology.

Nope ... that doesn't follow.

All you can conclude is that somebody (the vendor) was interested in pitching the technology to someone at TSA as a potential buyer. Just because someone at TSA agreed to listen to the pitch doesn't mean that TSA as an entire organization came close to endorsing the idea.

C'mon, folks ... we want TSA to be creative and think "outside-the-box" when it comes to security concepts. Well, being willing to think "outside-the-box" means that you have to listen to "so-far-outside-the-box-that-it's-ridiculous" ideas. That doesn't mean TSA has to adopt such ideas.

I think TSA did exactly what we'd hope they'd do with any new idea; listened, thought about it, then passed. Let's pull back on the conspiracy theories ...

Everyone who thinks TSA is in the least professional should check out the video of a female passenger being brutalized by TSA goons at Reagan National in February of 2007.All over a bottle of contact lens solution.Good job, goons. It ranks right up there with the "dangerous" nipple-ring episode.

Anonymous said... Everyone who thinks TSA is in the least professional should check out the video of a female passenger being brutalized by TSA goons at Reagan National in February of 2007.All over a bottle of contact lens solution. Good job, goons. It ranks right up there with the "dangerous" nipple-ring episode.

July 11, 2008 1:15 PM

Anon, it was the airport police, not a TSA Officer. Many blogs out there have got it wrong. Google it and find the video. You will see it's not a TSA Officer.

Everyone who thinks TSA is in the least professional should check out the video of a female passenger being brutalized by TSA goons at Reagan National in February of 2007.All over a bottle of contact lens solution.Good job, goons. It ranks right up there with the "dangerous" nipple-ring episode.

http://www.wikio.com/video/316452

here is the link to the video

NO TSA officer arrested the women(they don't have the power). Stop spreading blog myths. That was all local airport police. Who do a darn good job in my opion.

What makes someone who declines to show ID, but is willing to cooperate with your invasive interrogations, too dangerous to fly?

What is the difference between someone who declines to show ID and someone who lost their ID, if both are willing to cooperate with your invasive interrogations?

If you cannot answer these questions, how can you claim with a straight face that you are not, contrary to your attempts to say otherwise, targeting anyone who declines to show ID?

Why are 10 people a day who decline to show ID such a threat that they cannot be permitted to fly?

How much money does the new regime of invasive interrogations cost the taxpayer, compared to the previous policy of giving those who cannot or decline to show ID a pat-down and bag-check?

Why have you repeatedly refused to answer these questions? What are you afraid of?

I am still waiting for the law that allows the TSA to force ID verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area.

Come on guys, Kip testified he has the backing of Congress on this one. Where is it? Hello? Hello? is this thing on?

It is shameful that something as simple as citing the appropriate law is such a difficulty for a government entity. Come on, you want to play cops in your new uniforms and badges, at least be able to back your enforcement with law.

The Trollkiller wrote:I am still waiting for the law that allows the TSA to force ID verification as a criterion for granting access to a sterile area.

I'm tellin' ya', man, it's going to end up being some silly little technicality like the TDC podium being outside the screening area that totally invalidates your justification of the definitions for clearance through a screening area. It, after all, doesn't give definitions for what is required to actually get into the screening area in the first place.

Just wait. It's totally going to be something like that.

In all liklihood, though, I'm seeing one of two things happening here:

(a) As was the case with the MMW images, it's going to come sweeping up in a few weeks. Maybe longer than that - there's a lot of questions to try to get answers for, and a lot of them will likely require the aide of Francene's people to do it.

(b) The TSA is finished discussing the ID requirements in an official context, and will move on to other topics of discussion.

Personally, I think I'm seeing option B, if for no other reason than the total lack of any kind of meaningful response from the Bloggers themselves.

Holy crap, I want to go home. Yay for another twelve and a half hour day. Thirty more minutes!

I'm tellin' ya', man, it's going to end up being some silly little technicality like the TDC podium being outside the screening area that totally invalidates your justification of the definitions for clearance through a screening area. It, after all, doesn't give definitions for what is required to actually get into the screening area in the first place.

Just wait. It's totally going to be something like that.

In all liklihood, though, I'm seeing one of two things happening here:

(a) As was the case with the MMW images, it's going to come sweeping up in a few weeks. Maybe longer than that - there's a lot of questions to try to get answers for, and a lot of them will likely require the aide of Francene's people to do it.

(b) The TSA is finished discussing the ID requirements in an official context, and will move on to other topics of discussion.

Personally, I think I'm seeing option B, if for no other reason than the total lack of any kind of meaningful response from the Bloggers themselves.

Holy crap, I want to go home. Yay for another twelve and a half hour day. Thirty more minutes!

Give that man a cigar! I knew I liked your thinking abilities.

If moving the podium puts the TSA in compliance with the law I am happy with that because it will move the issue from the statutory question to the Constitutional question.

Please note I bolded the word "if" in the above statement. You know I will be double checking the law to see if anything invalidates your suggestion.

Take notice Kip, Dean may have just solved your problem without a big song and dance, no stonewalling, no snark and no lying.

Kip, I suggest you pass all new policy plans past Dean to see if they pass muster, he seems to have a better grasp than your "experts".

That was all local airport police. Who do a darn good job in my opion.

So tell me why a airport cop at MPLS rousted me for standing at the NW counter before they opened up? I was standing there with my luggage, doing nothing, but caught grief from a cop on a power trip. That's doing a 'good job'? Not in my world.

Trollkiller wrote:You know I will be double checking the law to see if anything invalidates your suggestion.

From you, yon Killer of Trolls, I would expect no less.

Kip, I suggest you pass all new policy plans past Dean to see if they pass muster, he seems to have a better grasp than your "experts".

I would just assume Kip Hawley never know I existed. :D I'm just a simple guy with no knack for hobnobbing amongst the powerful. I can barely even talk to my local Federal Security Director without feeling... awkward.

quoted from me"That was all local airport police. Who do a darn good job in my opinion."

anonymous said...So tell me why a airport cop at MPLS rousted me for standing at the NW counter before they opened up? I was standing there with my luggage, doing nothing, but caught grief from a cop on a power trip. That's doing a 'good job'? Not in my world.

-----------------------------------

My opinion is non debatable. I know my own opinion. You have your opinion and I have mine. Whats the issue?

"quoted from me"That was all local airport police. Who do a darn good job in my opinion."

anonymous said...So tell me why a airport cop at MPLS rousted me for standing at the NW counter before they opened up? I was standing there with my luggage, doing nothing, but caught grief from a cop on a power trip. That's doing a 'good job'? Not in my world.

-----------------------------------

My opinion is non debatable. I know my own opinion. You have your opinion and I have mine. Whats the issue?

-Tim"

OK, opinions aren't debatable. Neither are facts, and when they collide, one is generally treated with more credence than the other...

yangj08 said...OK, opinions aren't debatable. Neither are facts, and when they collide, one is generally treated with more credence than the other...-----------------------------------

"Bitten by a snake this year, he'll be scared of well ropes in the next ten."

plain english version"Once bitten by a snake, he/she is scared all his/her life at the mere sight of a rope."

I understand anonymous' position. He does not like cops. Maybe he was hassled one time at the airport or he has had a long life of bad experiences with cops in general. Just like my opinion and anonymous's life experience, they just can not be debated. I am not going to tell anonymous that his own experience is wrong.

The truth of the matter is at some point they have or are considring this or some version of this braclet. Do not deny the facts, it further questions your credability. Unfortunaetly now that it is public all the documents behind this will get marked as SSI and prevent anyone from retreiving this documents through FOIA.

TSA it is okay to consider anything but be honest about it! in society today we do need to fit a square inside the circle to keep the public safe. jus stop doing it at the average citizens freedom.

The DHS also claimed the real id act national id cards would not be used to track people by rfid. Yet the DHS had mentioned on another webpage of their website that the national id cards WILL be used to track us when around borders.

The DHS always says they will not do something then go ahead and do it anyways.

The DHS is a master in propaganda. Another example of their propaganda, they had released a single fake photo of what they say is from the full body xray machines (the photo on the DHS public relations poster in airports. The single photo they released is very blurry and bad quality to make people think the full body xray machine is not invading their privacy. When in fact the photo they released to the public is edited to appear of bad quality and blurry. I have actual photos of what this machine takes pictures of, let me tell you, it is very graphic and is not blurred in anyway.

Now I am not not getting off subject here, I am just using these subjects above to prove my point that the TSA/DHS had denied the existance of rfid tracking chips and taking nude photos of passengers, yet confessed to these actions on some of their other webpages. It would not suprise me if it is the same with this concept.

If I am not mistaken this was a reference to person flying in custody of armed law enforcement officials (local and federal police, the US Marshals, etc). This would not entail the everyday passenger. read the excerpt from the previous post closely:"This all originated from a meeting held two years ago with a private company representative (not Lamberd) who proposed bracelet technology in response to the TSA's desire to find less-than-lethal means to detain an apprehended suspect. ". If you read what is written, then you will come up with the following interpretation, the agancy was looking for a way to keep previously detained subjects under control with a less than lethal means. This means when Joe prisoner breaks bad on the LEO escorting him and poses a threat to the people around him (or even to himself) or the safety of the plane, then he can be zapped to bring him back under control. Read what the people write, not what you want to see. The desire of people to distort statements to their own end never ceases to amaze me.